Chris Hellyar wrote: > Mozilla dosn't recognise some of the HTML4.01 tags as per the wc3 spec, and > IE went further and added extensions to them, instead of using new tags for > it's own whizzy functionality.
Has the WC3 frameset spec actually been enhanced yet? Last time I wrote frames I had a helluva time trying to make it render without those ugly borders. I ended up using browser-specific extensions for IE and NS, an experience which was enough to put me off frames forever (or until their functionality approaches that of tables). And it still never looked right on NS. IE version 3.0 was the browser that always gave me what I expected. > Put and get forms handling is subtly broke in Konqurer 2.1, meaning that > some forms based html don't work, like squirrelmail (The astute will notice > I used Mozilla in my mail demo...) I'll have to keep that in mind for some CGI I've been playing with. > Table borders, cellpadding and cellspacing are subtly different between most > browsers, meaning you can't rely on them to give you consistent look. That's the big issue I was getting annoyed with. I've been trying to put pictures into a single-cell table with a cellpadding and bgcolor to produce a framing effect. IE worked as I'd expect, NS 4.73 didn't... it never got the cellpadding right. > Font sizing.. Not all browsers accept the standard 10px notation to mean 10 > pixels. It just does 10 point, meaning your small forms or captions get > busted, meaning your forms/tables overrun, or can't be read. IMO fonts should always be specified in point sizes. A 10-pixel font might look OK on the developer's 800x600 screen but hard to read on a 1280x1024 workstation. I also disapprove of fixed-width table cells, unless required for holding graphics. There are a lot of little useability issues that people don't seem to consider. For example, most people use their browser maximised but some (including me) don't. I once told a guy that his dark-blue-on-black text was impossible to read, and he told me to adjust my monitor brightness. I told him I wasn't going to adjust my settings, which are quite critical for graphics work, just to look at his website. > Ask anyone who has seriously attempted to make a web page work on "Any" > browser that is more than simple text and they will give you some more > examples. "Content-type: text/plain" will work on any browser :) > I know some of the folks on this list think that if you can't visit a site > with lynx it's not worth it, which is OK for some people. Reality is that > people like eye-candy, and web designers have to deliver so they make > trade-offs (consciously or not) about view ability and functionality. I think you've missed your thumb and hit the nail square on the head there. Its a tradeoff between cost and audience size. Most webmasters probably couldn't care less if their site doesn't work on a browser other than IE or NS, especially when catering for the "minority" will cost them most of that eye- candy (and more time/money for development). Cheers, - Dave David A. Mann, B.E. (Elec) http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ "Why is it that if an adult behaves like a child they lock him up, while children are allowed to run free on the streets?" -- Garfield
